The High Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated against petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C., finding the prosecution malicious, instituted to suppress a civil suit, and constituting an abuse of process of law.
The criminal proceedings in C.C.No.534 of 2020 were quashed and the petition was allowed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.O.P.No.4559 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.10.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL.O.P.No.4559 of 2021 and
CRL.M.P.Nos.2920 of 2021
1.V.Sakthivel 2.Kadar Sherif 3.Mushjhafa ... Petitioners
Vs
2.M.Thirunavukkarasu ... Respondents
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the case in C.C.No.534 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Erode and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manokaran For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For R2 : No Appearance
1/6
Crl.O.P.No.4559 of 2021
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.534 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Erode.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent and perused the materials available on record.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 09.08.2018 at about
7.00 p.m, the accused persons went to the house of the defacto complainant and scolded him in filthy language and also threatened him with dire consequences. They compelled him to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in view his brother-in-law gives to pay the said amount. Hence, the complaint.
4. On receipt of the complaint, the first respondent registered FIR in Crime No.491 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 294(b),
341, 387 and 506(ii) of IPC. After completion of investigation, the first 2/6
Crl.O.P.No.4559 of 2021
respondent filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance in
C.C.No.534 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Erode.
5. A perusal of the records reveals that all the verbatim
recorded in the FIR are all recorded in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Even single word has not changed and the same verbatim is mentioned in the statement of all the witnesses. Further, there was already a dispute between the first petitioner and one P. Neethi Mohan with regard to their business. In fact, the first petitioner already filed a suit as against the said P.Neethi Mohan, who is none other than the brother-in-law of the second respondent, in O.S.No.28 of 2018 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Erode, for permanent injunction. As a counter to the suit, in order to threaten the petitioners, a false complaint has been foisted as against the petitioners that too by the brother-in-law of the said P.Neethi Mohan, viz., the second respondent herein. All the allegations are civil in nature. There was absolutely no possibility for the said occurrence.
6. Even according to the second respondent, the accused had
entered into the house of the second respondent and A2 & A3 caught 3/6
Crl.O.P.No.4559 of 2021
hold of his hand and no one attacked him. They only threatened him with dire consequences. Further on perusal of the Advocate Commissioner's Report dated 29.01.2018 filed in O.S.No.28 of 2018 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Erode, revealed that the first petitioner herein is in possession and enjoyment of the subject property. Therefore, the entire proceeding is nothing but a clear abuse of process of law and it cannot be sustained as against the petitioners.
reported in (1992) SCC Crl. 426 in the case of Bajanlal v. State of Haryana, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has listed out the following category of case in which the criminal proceedings can be quashed using the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.:
"102..........
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on
4/6
Crl.O.P.No.4559 of 2021
the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
11. In view of the above discussions, the proceeding in C.C.No.534 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Erode, is hereby quashed. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
17.10.2023
Lpp Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No To
5/6
Crl.O.P.No.4559 of 2021
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
Lpp
CRL.O.P.No.4559 of 2021 & CRL.M.P.No.2920 of 2021
17.10.2023
6/6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings instituted due to private grudge and as abuse of process of law can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether allegations in the case are merely civil in nature masking a malafide prosecution.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bajanlal v. State of HaryanaReferred¶37
(1992) SCC Crl. 426 in the case of Bajanlal v. State of Haryana, · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
V. Sakthivel
Kadar Sherif
Mushjhafa
The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Erode
M. Thirunavukkarasu
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Parties & counsel
